HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Bure versus Lindros for HHOF

View Poll Results: Lindros or Bure HHOF first?
Bure 54 49.09%
Lindros 56 50.91%
Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-09-2010, 12:53 AM
  #101
Kaner88
Registered User
 
Kaner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chicagoland Area
Country: United States
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
What were you hearing about him in 1987, when he was 14?

In his prime, Lindros was exactly what he was advertised as.
My bad, 1989 with the Generals

Kaner88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 12:54 AM
  #102
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaner88 View Post
My bad, 1989 with the Generals
OK, good. You had me wondering what I had missed. I was ready to go search google news.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 05:50 AM
  #103
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
bure and lindros were special players who were the absolute best at scoring goals, assisting on goals and making plays, and for lindros being a physical monster

isn't the hall supposed to be for those special players, and not for glenn anderson players who never were the best at anything?

an induction or not wont change the fact that bure and lindros easily was better players than anderson, cam neely or brendan shanahan

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 07:45 AM
  #104
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,980
vCash: 500
Mario Lemieux

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Perhaps later in their careers, but you know both Gretzky and Lemieux did next to nothing in the defensive end when they were young.
Watched Mario Lemieux play junior about 2-3 times a month when he was in the Q with Laval, including a game when he helped kill a 3 on 5 then went and scored the game winner. He actually understood that defense mirrors offense and used this knowledge to his advantage.

The 1987 Canada Cup winning goal shows how well he used defensive positioning from the faceoff deep in Canada's zone to get the offensive advantage and score the series winner.

Bure never did these little things while I was watching. At times he would get into the appropriate passing lanes and be effective but at times he would take these long, fast looping arc back that gave the impression of effort but were basically a waste of time and effort.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 05-09-2010 at 07:49 AM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 12:06 PM
  #105
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaner88 View Post
Still, I don't think Lindros was as good as all the hype we heard in 1987. Yes, he was good, be everyone thought he was going to be some sort of god. And that didn't happen.
What would you call the fifth-highest PPG average in league history at the time of the Stevens hit in 2000?

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:13 PM
  #106
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post


i guess he put all his effort into trying to elevate the game of peter worrell, paul laus and robert svehla?
How about Viktor "the fiddler" Kozlov? He had the season of his career next to Bure. The 2000 Florida Panthers were not a sad sack team, they had 98 points. More than Colorado and more than Ottawa.

Anyways, I've often said that you always have to be careful on judging a player on their flash and dash. This is why I think people take Ovechkin over Crosby etc. I've always felt that the way a player PLAYED the game was more important. Look, the guy was a human highlight reel to the fullest extent. He was a joy to watch and we as hockey fans will always appreciate that. But when being judged by the HHOF I've always felt you have analyze everything about the player, the flash is just a bonus. Unless a guy scored at will to the point where no other aspect of his game mattered I don't think being a good goal scorer is enough. It doesn't matter if Mario Lemieux ever blocked a shot in his career because he was so good and so dominant that it makes up for any deficiency in his game.

But was Bure that good and dominant of a goal scorer for those 5 years that we are able to ignore everything else?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:20 PM
  #107
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
bure and lindros were special players who were the absolute best at scoring goals, assisting on goals and making plays, and for lindros being a physical monster

isn't the hall supposed to be for those special players, and not for glenn anderson players who never were the best at anything?

an induction or not wont change the fact that bure and lindros easily was better players than anderson, cam neely or brendan shanahan
Well that's the thing, they MIGHT be the exception. We shall see. Lindros is eligible as we speak and he just might get inducted in 2010 but I doubt it. I believe in the impact a player had on the NHL, which these two did, but I also like to reward longevity and not induct someone based on "what ifs". I hate that. The thing is, would it be enough for what they accomplished shortened career and all?

I don't want to start a can of worms since I have started threads recently comparing Shanahan to players that I find were superior to him, but he certainly had a better career than Bure. Prime vs. prime is closer but it's hard to go against Shanahan there. Anderson was too good in the playoffs for me to put Bure above him. Neely? Closer, but still debatable either way.

Lindros I will admit at his peak was better than anyone mentioned here, but career wise? Just better than Neely out of those three IMO

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 01:20 PM
  #108
xOvechkin*
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 925
vCash: 500
Bure all the way.

xOvechkin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 05:58 PM
  #109
Kaner88
Registered User
 
Kaner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chicagoland Area
Country: United States
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
Oh, and we forget about this little episode, which I think says a lot about Lindros.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h3No7CUbNI

Kaner88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 06:15 PM
  #110
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaner88 View Post
Oh, and we forget about this little episode, which I think says a lot about Lindros.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h3No7CUbNI
Yeah, Bure might have talked trash about his ****** team but Lindros pissed on a whole province.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 09:50 PM
  #111
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Yeah, Bure might have talked trash about his ****** team but Lindros pissed on a whole province.
Which one had something to do with hockey, and which one didn't?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:05 PM
  #112
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Which one had something to do with hockey, and which one didn't?
This isn't in relation to their on ice play but Lindros just might be held back from the HHOF because of his actions particularly towards Quebec. The reason being is that he has such a marginal resume to begin with that he isn't a lock. If the committee simply doesn't want him in because of his character they could do that and we'd be none the wiser. Because there are certainly holes in his career that one can point towards.

The problem I have with Lindros is that he did this twice. He did it with SS Marie in the OHL in 1989. He forced them to trade him to Oshawa. He then did it with Quebec in 1991 forcing them to............well make a trade that benefitted them. The common denominator is Lindros and his parents. IMO you should be honoured and proud to be a part of the NHL and never take for granted that a team wants your services because a whole slew of 18 year olds would gladly take your spot. I never agreed with Lindros doing that, he was an 18 PROSPECT, the NHL owed him nothing

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2010, 10:06 PM
  #113
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
This isn't in relation to their on ice play but Lindros just might be held back from the HHOF because of his actions particularly towards Quebec. The reason being is that he has such a marginal resume to begin with that he isn't a lock. If the committee simply doesn't want him in because of his character they could do that and we'd be none the wiser. Because there are certainly holes in his career that one can point towards.

The problem I have with Lindros is that he did this twice. He did it with SS Marie in the OHL in 1989. He forced them to trade him to Oshawa. He then did it with Quebec in 1991 forcing them to............well make a trade that benefitted them. The common denominator is Lindros and his parents. IMO you should be honoured and proud to be a part of the NHL and never take for granted that a team wants your services because a whole slew of 18 year olds would gladly take your spot. I never agreed with Lindros doing that, he was an 18 PROSPECT, the NHL owed him nothing
I agree. Lindros will get in eventually, but I expect him to wait at least 5-10 years.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 05:30 AM
  #114
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Which one had something to do with hockey, and which one didn't?
Relevance? We are talking about their HoF induction chances and such things will or should matter. Maybe if you dropped your pretentious attitude you might not come off like such an ass like you did with the Tumba "correction".

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:28 AM
  #115
02m3smg
Registered User
 
02m3smg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
Lindros going in with a Leafs jersey?

02m3smg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:02 AM
  #116
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Relevance? We are talking about their HoF induction chances and such things will or should matter. Maybe if you dropped your pretentious attitude you might not come off like such an ass like you did with the Tumba "correction".
Of course it's relevant. Hockey is the most important thing, first and foremost. Which unfortunate situation affected a player's on-ice play and the success of his team? Which just affected his reputation? It's not rocket science.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:19 AM
  #117
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Of course it's relevant. Hockey is the most important thing, first and foremost. Which unfortunate situation affected a player's on-ice play and the success of his team? Which just affected his reputation? It's not rocket science.
We are still talking about his chances into HHoF. Reputation is of grave importance (ofc in combination with actual gameplay). I dont know if Lindros short period of dominance will get him into HoF based on those comments he made already at the draft plus the departure with Philly. On the plus side he kept contributing to hockey by joining NHLPA but left after only 15 months.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:36 PM
  #118
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Anderson was too good in the playoffs for me to put Bure above him
anderson played on that 80s oilers with gretzky, kurri and coffey and opponent goalies standing cemented, and bure has a better playoff ppg too ... anderson wasn't physical and not very great defensively so what exactly does he have on bure? being a compiler?

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 12:37 PM
  #119
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
anderson played on that 80s oilers with gretzky, kurri and coffey and opponent goalies standing cemented, and bure has a better playoff ppg too ... anderson wasn't physical and not very great defensively so what exactly does he have on bure? being a compiler?
Anderson was average defensively. But he was very physical. He was one of the most fearless, kamikaze forwards in the NHL.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 01:22 PM
  #120
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
anderson played on that 80s oilers with gretzky, kurri and coffey and opponent goalies standing cemented, and bure has a better playoff ppg too ... anderson wasn't physical and not very great defensively so what exactly does he have on bure? being a compiler?
Anderson's stats are inflated by the era he played in, but he really didn't benefit tremendously from Gretzky, Kurri, and Coffey. He basically spent his entire Edmonton career on Mark Messier's right wing, while Gretzky centered Kurri and Coffey was basically attached to the Gretzky line at even-strength.

I don't remember the powerplay units exactly, but I'm pretty sure Glen Sather traditionally separated Gretzky/Kurri and Messier/Anderson as two separate units, while Coffey often stayed out on the ice for the entire penalty. Still, it's not as if Anderson was taking passes from Gretzky on a regular basis, at least not at even-strength.

One thing you are completely off on is the notion that Anderson wasn't physical. That is just plain wrong, and I have no idea where you got that idea. He was one of the most recklessly physical forwards of his time. He threw his body around the way you simply won't see a top six winger do today. Defensively, he was nothing more than decent, but he didn't need to be with Mark Messier and, sometimes, Esa Tikkanen on his line. Both of those two were very strong defensive forwards, and all three were tremendously physical and generally hell to play against.

A lot of Oilers from that team have unfair stigmas about them thanks to the incorrect idea that the 1980's Edmonton Oilers didn't care about anything but scoring goals. Paul Coffey, contrary to popular belief, was not a defensive disaster in Edmonton, and was often lauded for picking up his defensive play when games mattered (playoffs, Canada Cup, etc). Apparently people remember him only for what he did at the end of his career, and I was baffled that someone actually tried to say that Coffey would get his ass handed to him in today's "faster" NHL. I'm pretty sure the Paul Coffey that fought 51 times and had six 100 PIM seasons would be able to handle himself just fine in the unlikely event that someone actually caught up to him.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 01:27 PM
  #121
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Anderson was average defensively. But he was very physical. He was one of the most fearless, kamikaze forwards in the NHL.
Anderson was not physical at all. He didn't shy away from contact, and could drive th enet with the best of them, but he certainly wasn't out there throwing big body checks. Also very reckless/careless/dirty with the stick.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 01:41 PM
  #122
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Anderson was average defensively. But he was very physical. He was one of the most fearless, kamikaze forwards in the NHL.
well, if that is the definition of being physical, being fearless and running through bigger defenders to score your goals, then bure was physical too ... that's a big reason for his damaged knees

again, i don't see anderson having anything on bure except compiling and his team being the great edmonton oilers of the 80s ... bure was also much better internationally, his 9 goals in 6 games in the 98 olympics against anderson's few goals in a few canada cups? really?

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 01:44 PM
  #123
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Anderson was average defensively. But he was very physical. He was one of the most fearless, kamikaze forwards in the NHL.
Did you even watch him play? Anderson wasnt very physical.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 01:46 PM
  #124
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Anderson was not physical at all. He didn't shy away from contact, and could drive th enet with the best of them, but he certainly wasn't out there throwing big body checks. Also very reckless/careless/dirty with the stick.
There are different definitions of physical. Physical doesn't necessarily mean taking heads off a la Scott Stevens. Anderson was not a big hitter, but his style of play definitely was what I would deem physical. Not in a power forward type of way, but from a contact perspective, he definitely locked up with opposing players a lot. In that era, as I'm sure you know, the stick was every bit as part of the physical game as any body part. Anderson played a very tough-nosed style and possessed as good a cross-check as anyone in the league, but he wasn't noted for huge hits. I would still call him a physical player; no player that went to the front of the net as readily as he did, in that era, would be considered "not physical" to me. If I had to compare him to someone today, physicality-wise, I would think Brooks Laich. Laich doesn't throw any big hits, but he certainly is "physical"

I wouldn't argue that Anderson was a better player than Pavel Bure, though. There is a difference between who was better and who I'd rather have on my team, and while Bure was better, I would take Anderson for a playoff run any day of the week. He was clutch. Bure was very, very good in the playoffs (at least in Vancouver), but Anderson was one of the most clutch players ever, and the fact that his 5 playoff OT goals are only surpassed by a certain Sakic and a certain Richard, that is that.


Last edited by Blades of Glory: 05-10-2010 at 01:52 PM.
Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 01:55 PM
  #125
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blades of Glory View Post
There are different definitions of physical. Physical doesn't necessarily mean taking heads off a la Scott Stevens. Anderson was not a big hitter, but his style of play definitely was what I would deem physical. Not in a power forward type of way, but from a contact perspective, he definitely locked up with opposing players a lot. In that era, as I'm sure you know, the stick was every bit as part of the physical game as any body part. Anderson played a very tough-nosed style and possessed as good a cross-check as anyone in the league, but he wasn't noted for huge hits. I would still call him a physical player; no player that went to the front of the net as readily as he did, in that era, would be considered "not physical" to me. If I had to compare him to someone today, physicality-wise, I would think Brooks Laich. Laich doesn't throw any big hits, but he certainly is "physical"

I wouldn't argue that Anderson was a better player than Pavel Bure, though. There is a difference between who was better and who I'd rather have on my team, and while Bure was better, I would take Anderson for a playoff run any day of the week. He was clutch. Bure was very, very good in the playoffs (at least in Vancouver), but Anderson was one of the most clutch players ever, and the fact that his 5 playoff OT goals are only surpassed by a certain Sakic and a certain Richard, that is that.
He wasn't physical for that era though. Lots of players played like him (Dirtbags with sticks). I agree with his infront of the net prescence though.

About playoffs... well I think Oilers couldve won with Bure (the vancouver one) aswell. It all depends if I already have Bure on my team I would pick an Anderson as GM and vice versa.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.